Would an RAF ‘Commando Force’ be a Useful Capability, beyond what they already have in terms of special forces support?
The RAF, as many modern air forces have, has become increasingly sophisticated. However, if the UK goes down the ‘Global Guardian’ route the RAF’s role would be largely relegated to transport, ISR and CAS.
Typically, these types of operation put many resources into training and mentoring local forces so they can transition to a full capability able to support themselves. This is exactly what is happening in Afghanistan today and Iraq some years ago but in these activities the RAF has a relatively limited role, for example the recent training of Afghan pilots on Mil 17’s.
For ground operations, small arms and support weapons are generally less sophisticated and costly fast air or UAV’s so the RAF simply does not have the means to play a greater role in mentoring local forces in the application of air power.
Reactive, high tempo CAS is one area where there exists little room for second best or try again tomorrow but armed ISR and transport are typical missions that could be devolved to local forces and with the right blend of equipment, time and expertise could produce decisive contributions to joint operations.
Some local forces will of course be much better placed than others; the Iraqis for example already had a relatively sophisticated air force so this would be a completely different proposition to having to teach English before even basic flight training, as with the Afghans.
Could an RAF Commando or Mentoring Force not only contribute to the skilling of local forces as part of a comprehensive mentoring approach but also offer something to UK forces operating in similar conditions?
Any capability we have must have applicability in a range of conflict types although we must also be pragmatic and ensure that gold plating does not make any equipment unsuitable.
The USAF already have these capabilities in place but are looking to increase them with two acquisition programmes, these will include about 100 light attack/armed reconnaissance aircraft (LAAR) and 60 light transports, the so-called, light military aircraft (LiMA), optimised for irregular warfare operations.
The LAAR is the programme that has generated the most interest with the obvious contenders like the Super Tucano and Beechcraft AT6 prompting strong reactions on either side of the opinion divide. I think there is room for such an aircraft as long as costs can be contained and we don’t get tempted to use them in CAS roles.
Despite receiving little attention but arguably of more significance and value is the light military aircraft (LiMA) concept. This must be able to operate from austere locations, lift 6 passengers of 800kg plus of cargo, have a cargo door and a range of 900nm on internal fuel. Missions will include airlift of cargo and personnel, airdrop, forward operating location re-supply and medical/casualty evacuation. These types of missions will integrate the local forces with coalition air management in a graduated and less restrictive manner than getting them to start with combat operations in support of mixed forces on the ground.
When helping local forces defend themselves and to contribute to joint operations key factors are cost and simplicity of operation and a recognition that support infrastructure will in many cases be as austere as the locations they will have to work from.
Contributing not only to supporting local forces this type of capability can bring something to UK operations as well, mainly their cost. If we recognise the cost additions of yet another type in service there must be cost savings elsewhere. These cost savings will come from not having to use larger aircraft like C130 or A400 where a smaller type will do but perhaps more importantly, being able to reduce pressure on an extremely hard working support helicopter fleet. By freeing up some Chinook and Merlin flights their flying hours can be devoted more to offensive operations or simply reduced, either way a cost saving of one form or another. In peace time this capability might contribute to basic training, Army cooperation, disaster relief, air dropping and parachute training.
The mentoring and training capability could be comprised a mix of regular and sponsored reserves and need not be expensive. In addition to aircrew training and equipment we would also need to consider engineering, force protection training (RAF Regiment), Casevac, air management, aircraft/cargo handling and air dropping.
Post conflict, we might transfer the equipment to the local force as a gesture of goodwill.
What are the equipment options?
Fortunately the civilian and military marketplace has many aircraft that could fulfil this role with ease, no need for expensive and time consuming development programmes. Air support operations in austere locations worldwide have resulted in a many options for an RAF Commando Logistics force.
Having a quick cast around here are a few options for discussion, some larger than others so they are not exactly comparable to each other but worth a look. Performance figures are subject to environmental conditions and not all of them are actually in production.
Group 1 (Twin Engine)
PZL M28 Skytruck
The M28 is a licence produced copy of the Antonov AN-28, produced by PZL Mielec in Poland. The US special forces have reportedly taken delivery of 10 of these aircraft.
Passengers, 18
Cargo, 2,300kg
Antonov AN38
The AN38 is an enlarged version of the AN28 with a greater payload, range and larger cabin amongst many improvements although not many have been produced.
Passengers, 27
Cargo, 2,500kg
Sukhoi SU80
The SU80 is a relatively modern aircraft yet still retaining the simple design and maintenance of Russian equipment although as with the AN38, not many have been produced.
Passengers, 30
Cargo, 3,300kg
EADS CASA C212
Already well established in Afghanistan the C212 is perhaps a more natural choice for western forces and is in widespread use.
Passengers, 25
Cargo, 3,000kg
Gippsland Aeronautics Nomad
Perhaps a bit of a wildcard but GA have recently resurrected the GAF Nomad
Passengers, 12
Cargo, 1,500kg
Harbin Y-12
A Chinese twin turboprop aircraft, the Y12 is in widespread service.
Passengers, 17
Cargo, 5,700kg
Britten Norman Defender
Actually still in service with UK forces and many others around the world, the Britten Norman Defender is the only one in this list manufactured in the UK.
Passengers, 9
Cargo, 700kg
Beechcraft King Air 350
The King Air 350 is already in service with the UK providing the basis for the RAF’s Shadow R1 ISR aircraft and a number of other types so would make an obvious choice for logistics commonality but it is relatively sophisticated and short field performance is not brilliant.
Passengers, 13
Cargo, 1,200kg
Viking DHC-6 Twin Otter
The Twin Otter has legendary toughness and is available with floats which makes its deployment options a little wider.
Passengers, 20
Cargo, 2,00kg
Group 2 (Single Engine)
Viking DHC-2T Turbo Beaver
The Turbo Beaver is a rugged aircraft that can be fitted with skis or floats for flexibility of operation
Passengers, 8
Cargo, 1,000kg
Turbine Explorer 750T
The 750T is a new design based on the well established Explorer 500
Passengers, 16
Cargo, 1,800kg
Gippsland Aeronautics GA8 Airvan
Manufactured in Australia the Airvan is relatively small in comparison with others in this list
Passengers, 7
Cargo, 800kg
Cessna Grand Caravan
Benefiting from a huge installed base and already in service with the Iraqi Air Force where it fulfils a number of roles including armed ISR the Caravan is regarded as the front runner for the USAF LiMA competition
Passengers, 14
Cargo, 685kg
Pacific Aerospace P-750
One of the more unusual aircraft in this group the P-750 is capable of incredible short take off and landings.
Passengers, 10
Cargo, 1,900kg
Pilatus PC-12 NG
The PC12 is a familiar and well used aircraft for operations from austere locations
Passengers, 9
Cargo, 450kg
Quest Kodiak
The Kodiak is another single engine backwoods aircraft that is very rugged
Passengers,8
Cargo, 1,300kg
Summary
Air mobility is vital for any counter insurgency or asymmetric conflict, the RAF could at a very reasonable cost create an effective capability that would return a great deal of capability. Although it would be desirable to have something akin to the USAF Special Operations Command the UK should set its sights a little lower and excel at one area, in my opinion, air mobility.
So, what would you cut to pay for it and don’t say first class travel for Generals!
IF we go the ‘Global Guardian’ route – which I don’t actually think the UK can afford…..
So, no we don’t need this capability, the Americans can afford it (or think they can) because they still want Pax Americana under the auspices of a ‘Global War on Terror’. Even if we wanted to do this, from political and military perspectives, is it worth the effort ? Once again the RAF would be treading on the toes of others (SAS !) in some aspects of this role.
Apart from the fact that we can’t really afford it, what about the additional pilots and technical support? Where do conjure them up from?
The special forces are already there, rather than having a permanent force on standby it would be better to bring them all together on an op by op basis and utilise our existing aircraft fleet.
If we need aircraft that we don’t have then leasing them in should be a viable alternative.
It wasn’t something that I think would be hugely expensive and needed immediately, so a reasonable build up would be OK and it could utilise sponsored reserves for example.
I think the RN could also do something along these lines as well
it was just a ‘throw it out there’ idea really
Look he mentioned the RN too good to resist. I would quite like to see the Royal Marines with a few customised Merlin and other equipment to conduct covert or semi-covert operations primarily from the sea. Or as has been mentioned before conduct tri-service combat search and rescue duties as the marines can be found at sea and on land also UK SAR is being privatised so keeping something in house might be an idea. As for general special op’s I don’t think we need an RAF special operations force but a tri-service SOCOM might be useful drawing from across the armed forces basically the best that can be found. Ideally with its own independent budget and a larger freedom of control in certain aspects for instance getting kit that it wants but maybe isn’t politically correct a bit like what the USAF SOCOM does. We already have a few Special Forces and Elite Units in the UK Armed Forces so instead of creating a new one work with what we have by maybe changing things around a bit organisation wise. Possibly having a single large tri-service force command with specialised groups within it or a large tri-service mainly support and logistics force with the SAS, SBS etc still independent?
At the end of the day however who knows what the UK Special Forces have as toilet seats don’t cost megabucks neither do nuts and bolts that money must be going somewhere. Either that or the MoD sucks even more than I thought it did before and they truly live on another planet with little green men. Also with all the money being spent on the current wars and the importance of Special Forces in the ‘war on terror’ then I would hope they have been well enough resourced to do what they need to do.
RAF commandos.no! the raf already has an infantry role and within that an airbourne sqn, no need to dilute any further, plus many go on to attempt and succeed in SF selection.
i would look at the eads 212 as this is being successfully used by the americans for resupply in AF using a combination of new systems. These include GPS deployed systems dropped from heights that avoid visual/aural detection, accuracy at the moment is +/- 15m. A use once and discard cheap parachute dropped from low level and also containers that absorb the impact when you literally throw it out the door!
As stated we are using large aircraft (herc/chinook) for light loads. these aircraft (212) can land on airstrips unsuitable for herc and also small and nimble enough for inaccesible areas. I have also pointed out on previous posts due to low cost running these can free up C130’s for more important tasks as there is a high percentage of people waiting to qualify for wings or obtain the required ammount of jumps to retain parachute pay.
cancel 2-3 more mega expensive A400m’s and use the money to buy this and maybe some 235/295’s eads won’t complain as the money is still going in their till, plus the infrastructre is set in madrid to train ground and air crew (madrid that’ll be a crap place to do a course)!!
as a subnote the 212 has a palletised maritime patrol suite therefore giving it yet another role, also france has ordered 8 eads 235’s as a stopgap whilst waiting for the A400.
In the context of Afghanistan, yeah it makes some sense.
Some sort of air power would be a massive boon to the ANA, but they’ll never be able to operate C-130 sized craft, they can barely raise the taxes to pay the wages to 200,000 soldiers in a land where $5 a day is a good wage, how are they going to afford A400m?
That said, we probably arent going to be in Afghanistan long term, and probably shouldnt be getting involved in fights like it ever again.
“IF we go the ‘Global Guardian’ route – which I don’t actually think the UK can afford…..”
“Apart from the fact that we can’t really afford it, what about the additional pilots and technical support? Where do conjure them up from?”
Why don’t you guys believe we can afford Global Guardian?
Why cant we afford “global guardian”
Lack of political will makes it futile.
The blue wet stuff makes it a poor choice.
Politicaly, Afghanistan is a clusterbleep that no sane person would ever hope for.
Policitaly, Wars are great as long as Mondays papers lead with “Crisis in place you’ve never heard of”, Fridays lead with “Brave Boys return for Tea, Cake and Medals” and somewhere inbetween “Brave Boys head off”, “Brave Boys have Jingoiastic Name on the run”, “Jingoistic Name Regime collapses”.
Jedibeeftrix asks why I dont think we can afford Global Guardian – well because I think its pretty close to what the government thinks we are doing now, and its not funding that appropriately.
I don’t think any UK government of any political party would properly fund to the levels required to equip and maintain the UK Forces ‘properly’ for the Global Guardian role. Just my opinion.
The matter of whether it is the correct choice is separate.
All of the RUSI doctrines were designed to fit into the current funding regime (in fact the latter two would require less).
If we cannot trust the government to maintain even the current funding level then we might as well opt for a Home Defence force with a sustained peace-keeping function bolted on, and that is the question posed by RUSI:
“If you want the UK to be a Great Power, and you want to do it on the cheap as is currently the case, then you have some hard decisions to make to because it will be a very focused form of power-projection that survives.”
That focus can either be:
> naval/expeditionary centric (Strategic Raiding)
> army/COIN centric (Global Guardian)
> HQ/multilateral centric (Contributory)
whilst maintaing:
> the strategic deterrent
SDR98 was in essence all three of those roles, and it required at >least carrier/amphibs
> the large flexible army
> the ability to conduct theatre level out of area operations
and at that point the public may recognise that the game is up and opt to ditch:
> the strategic deterrent
There is a crunch coming and i will be content with any of the three main options above, (although i have a stated preference for one), but be in no doubt that if we fudge the issue we will by default become a Home Defence force with a sustained peace-keeping function bolted on (Gendarmerie), and the public will rightly ask what utility is gained by maintaining a strategic deterrent in such a reduced state………..
Give me 2.5% of GDP for peacetime defence spending and we could no doubt maintain at least two of those functions, and justify a strategic deterrent, but that is not where we are.
Repeat after me, cutting the strategic deterant changes nothing because its so cheap as to be functionaly free anyway.
The lifetime costs of trident replacement were estimated at £20b, thats less than £1b a year.
Had the cold war gone hot, the only 3 countries the Soviets expected to be spared a nuclear strike were France, Russia and The UK.
Thats not me saying that, thats the Soviets war plans as given to the Polish Armed forces at the time and published by them five or so years back.
“Repeat after me, cutting the strategic deterant changes nothing because its so cheap as to be functionaly free anyway…….thats less than £1b a year.”
Dominic, perhaps I’m in the old school where £1billion is still considered a lot of money. How many new helicopters is £1billion a year?
The Soviet war plans must be based on the assumption that we wouldn’t launch our nuclear weapons in retaliation. Would we have sat and watched the rest of Europe become a nuclear waste land? Its not the fact the deterrent is cheap its the fact that would could never afford to use it. Crack cocaine is probabaly considered cheap but I wouldn’t recommend it.
Also, how can we complain about a country like Iran trying to acquire a nuclear weapons programme when we have one?
Ok, you may say that Iran has an unpredictable and unstable regime. I’d say that’s because we helped make it that way as the UK tried to engineer a coup d’etat back in 1954, or there abouts. Perhaps if we formulated a more pricipled and effective foreign policy to try to make the world a more stable place we wouldn’t need to rely on nuclear weapons. When Iran captured UK sailors a couple of years ago, how good were nuclear weapons then? Neither are they any good against the Taliban. In fact, politically we keep getting repeatedly slapped in the face by nations such as Iran and nuclear weapons probabaly confound the issue.
I say scrap/don’t replace the nuclear deterrent and ring fence the money saved to actually purchase the kit we need.
Repeat after me: The only reason we have nuclear weapons is so that the UK can sit as a permanent member of the UN security council. Take that away and what are we?
Germany is a well respected industrial nation and is also nuclear free, should we not try to be more like them?
DJ – you are preaching to the converted:
http://jedibeeftrix.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/britain%E2%80%99s-future-strategic-direction-%E2%80%93-and-why-i-believe-the-ippr-are-wrong/
however, if they public are accomodated to a new reality of britain as just another medium sized power, exactly how long do you think a strategic deterrent will survive?
RS – budgets are never ring-fenced.
The RN have been playing that losing game for a long time, giving a few destroyers here, a few submarines there, each and every time the treasury hatchet man knocks on the door, and every time for the same reason; to protect the carriers.
“just one more little cut………………..”
Jedibeeftrix said: “If we cannot trust the government to maintain even the current funding level then we might as well opt for a Home Defence force”
I agree entirely and I have said it on this site. Its about political will – if UK politicians of any ilk want to keep this absurd notion of being a ‘great power’ then they have to fund appropriately. If you can’t fund appropriately then “be a man” and put it state it clearly in your political agenda that under your parties Government you will:
* Transfer our seat on the UNSC to India
* Turn the RN into the Coast Guard
* Keep enough Squaddies to defend our own borders
* Keep enough Typhoons to escort away the odd Bear
Don’t lie about it, be honest. So, while I agree with everything in the RUSI documents, and personally prefer Strategic Raiding – I don’t see any government of any colour doing anything except more fudging, and underfunding whatever option is chosen. As for the deterent it could be made (even) cheaper without giving it up entirely, but if you give it up, and don’t have large conventional forces, how do you justify seat on UNSC ???
Richard
Compared to other items of government spending, even in a starving defence sector, £1b is not a great deal of money.
Its construction of a T45, or the cost of maintaining 46 pilots and Typhoons in combat readiness for a year.
(£90,000 per hour x 20 hours per month x 12 months per year).
Perhaps I was a bit harsh, but pretending the UK could afford to buy 6 carrier battle groups and educate every child in africa if only it would unilateraly disarm its nuclear weapons is simply wrong.
“The Soviet war plans must be based on the assumption that we wouldn’t launch our nuclear weapons in retaliation. Would we have sat and watched the rest of Europe become a nuclear waste land? Its not the fact the deterrent is cheap its the fact that would could never afford to use it.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_to_the_River_Rhine
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/1504008/World-War-Three-seen-through-Soviet-eyes.html
Thats pretty much right.
The Soviets expected a nuclear attack by them on Denmark to lead to a nuclear attack by us on East Germany, or the other way round, which was acceptable all with a say.
Whereas a nuclear attack by Russia on the UK would lead to a nuclear attack by the UK on Russia, or the other way round, which was unacceptable to all with a say.
Much as I find the Soviet leadership a fascinating display in delusional behaviour, I believe they were right with this one.
“Also, how can we complain about a country like Iran trying to acquire a nuclear weapons programme when we have one?”
Easy, Iran signed a treaty saying they would never try and develop nuclear weapons.
Sign the NPT, no nuclear weapons.
“Germany is a well respected industrial nation and is also nuclear free, should we not try to be more like them?”
I’m not sure who its well respected by and why their respect is something we should seek, its doing Obama many favours right now, but had the Cold War gone hot, Germany would be a radioactive wasteland, and thats something I dont think the UK should try to be like.
Jedi
“however, if they public are accommodated to a new reality of Britain as just another medium sized power, exactly how long do you think a strategic deterrent will survive?”
I don’t believe the public will come to terms with such a situation, any politician saying, “Come on, lets just face it, we’ve under funded the army so much we couldn’t stop Norway sacking London, we might as well get rid of Trident” is likely to find himself thrown out FOR failing to fund the armed forces to such a degree.
Even if we were to be thoroughly beaten in a conflict, I believe the mood would be one of rebuild and have a second go rather than meekly accept the result and confirm our status as a regional power in a peaceful region.
I could of course be wrong about that, but if I’m not, then the only people who consider nuclear weapons an issue that needs “discussing” are for the most part extremists in too small a number and with voting convictions too strong to be changed making themselves politically irrelevant.
There are circumstances in which abandoning the nuclear programme makes sense, but theres circumstances in which leaping from a building to your death is pretty sensible.
Getting to that point however, is pretty damned stupid.
“RS – budgets are never ring-fenced.”
That is so true its unbelievable.
I’ve worked for a large charity.
Each year, we’d come up with a prioritised list of stuff we wanted to do.
Say…
Maintain 80 Typhoons
Maintain Armoured Brigade
Maintain Super Carrier
We’d then look at our funding streams
Firstly, we’d use time limited specific funds, so if we had a grant that needed to be used this year and would fund the upkeep of 40 Typhoons, we’d use that.
Next, we’d look at none specified time limited funds, so if we had a commitment from someone to pay us £500m (about the upkeep of 20 Typhoons) next year, we’d spend that money.
Thirdly, we’d look at none time limited specific funding, so someone said, heres £125m, use it on Typhoons, at some point. The moneys popped in the bank waits around until we need to spend it, and we spend it here for another 10 Typhoons.
Finaly, we fund the 10 remaining Typhoons out of general spending.
For the most park, “ring fences” just displace general spending rather than set priorities.
And thats before we get into arguements about whether a Seaphoon carrying nuclear weapons is a strategic deterant
If it is, then the ring fenced budget to build SSBN’s can quite happily be spent on a ASW frigate, to protect the CVA, which will carry the nuclear armed Seaphoon….
I think the difference is that I believe people here are advocating a fudge, chop a little of everything, in the hope of keeping a useful core of the Armed Forces, and justifying it by saying the politicians don’t have the balls to go for a more focused strategy because they are terrified of adverse press because they ‘destroyed’ the RAF in our hour of need!!!
Whereas I believe that the budget is so small that any fudge will by default destroy what little power projection we have left, and that if we wish to remain an influential player on the world scene, then we need to have the courage of our convictions and argue for a strategy that really will justify that UNSC seat.
how about stopping sending a shedload of cash to nations that abuse it, don’t need it ie “X” ammount of millions to india, who are spending BILLIONS on fighters and submarines and then splitting that between us if the tree huggers revolt then spend it on british firms making british things ie agricultrual equipment, solar/wind generators and then the jewel in the crown get the hell outta dodge (brussels). then our NHS won’t be burdened with holiday patients, people claiming benefits from some far flung eastern european capital and coughing up for MEP cocktail parties.
strangely enough i reckon there might be a bit more cash in the pot. Oooo i feel better now
A version of the X-55 ACCA might be interesting